# Minor s/o Moolchand Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-13
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 2126 of 2021
- **Bench:** Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/minor-s-o-moolchand-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49245
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - As per FIR, informant's son
shot by revisionist (a minor) with countrymade firearm near his college gate,
leading to his death on the same day - FIR
u/s 302 IPC lodged within five hours -
During investigation, revisionist found to
be about 13 years 6 months old, matter
was placed before J.J.Board where order
for determination of age passed - His bail
application
rejected,
appeal
also
dismissed - Held, it was juvenile who
came prepared and armed with countrymade firearm and though he accompanied
his brother, but it was he, who fired upon
deceased, killing him almost instantaneously -
Before commission of crime, he picked firearm
from his own house indicating that incident
was not committed at spur of moment, rather
it was planned - This can also not be pushed
aside that bail application and revision filed on
behalf of minor through his grandfather and
not by his mother or father - District Probation
Officer reported that juvenile lacked proper
family care and fell into bad company - It is
doubtful that his grandfather alone can
provide adequate care at his age of 13-14
years
-
Juvenile
requires
supervision,
professional
counseling
and
behavioral
therapy - In view of facts and circumstances,
revisionist not entitled to bail. (Para 3, 22,
23, 25)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confession is corroborated by other evidence
on record, it acquires more credibility.".

20. With foregoing discussion and
considering the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties as well as material on
record including the impugned order, I find no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the court below while rejecting the
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by
the revisionist to summon the respondent no.4 as
accused to face trial together with accused, who
are already facing trial. The parameters laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court for invoking power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. in Hardeep Singh
(supra), is not fulfilled by facts of this case in
respect of respondent no. 4. There is no cogent
and strong evidence against the respondent no. 4
to invoke power under section 319 Cr.P.C.
available to the trial court. There was no prima
facie material and evidence for satisfaction of the
court below that there was more than prima facie
case as exercised at the time of framing of charge
but short of satisfaction to the extent that evidence
if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.
Revision devoid of merits and deserves to be
dismissed.

21. Accordingly, the instant revision is
dismissed with above observations.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1486
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Revision No. 2126 of 2021

Minor s/o Moolchand ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Adesh Kumar, Priyanka Sharma, Sri Avnish
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - As per FIR, informant's son
shot by revisionist (a minor) with countrymade firearm near his college gate,
leading to his death on the same day - FIR
u/s 302 IPC lodged within five hours -
During investigation, revisionist found to
be about 13 years 6 months old, matter
was placed before J.J.Board where order
for determination of age passed - His bail
application
rejected,
appeal
also
dismissed - Held, it was juvenile who
came prepared and armed with countrymade firearm and though he accompanied
his brother, but it was he, who fired upon
deceased, killing him almost instantaneously -
Before commission of crime, he picked firearm
from his own house indicating that incident
was not committed at spur of moment, rather
it was planned - This can also not be pushed
aside that bail application and revision filed on
behalf of minor through his grandfather and
not by his mother or father - District Probation
Officer reported that juvenile lacked proper
family care and fell into bad company - It is
doubtful that his grandfather alone can
provide adequate care at his age of 13-14
years
-
Juvenile
requires
supervision,
professional
counseling
and
behavioral
therapy - In view of facts and circumstances,
revisionist not entitled to bail. (Para 3, 22,
23, 25)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 2732 of 2010, decided on 14.09.2010

2. Kanchan Sonkar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020, decided on
01.12.2020

3. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No.1852 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2016
2 All. Minor s/o Moolchand Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1487
4. Prakash Vs St. of Raj., 2006 Cri.L.J.1373

5. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P., 2003 (1)
J.I.C. 103

6. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr.; (2012) 5
SCC 201

7. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2018
(2) ACR 1941, (Paras 13, 25)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vivek
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 as well as Sri O.P.
Mishra, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 has been filed on behalf of the minor
'X' S/o Moolchand through his natural
guardian/grandfather Sri Ved Prakash S/o
Late Desh Raz R/o Village- Akbarpur
Shadat, Police Station Bahsuma, DistrictMeerut with the prayer to admit the minor
to bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the
order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut and order
dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2021
arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2021
under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-
Bahsuma, District- Meerut by which the
bail to the juvenile was declined.

3. As per the version of the FIR, the
informant's son- Nitin had gone to his
college on his bullet motorcycle to receive
his report card. When he approached the
gate of his college, he found the revisionist
(minor) and his brother- Arjun standing
there. He got engaged in some kind of
conversation with them. Suddenly, the
minor whipped out a country-made firearm
and shot at Nitin. He was referred to
Meerut Hospital, where he succumbed to
his injuries and died. On the basis of the
FIR lodged by deceased's father within less
than 5 hours of the incident on the same
day, Case Crime No. 0034 of 2021 under
Section 302 IPC, was registered and
investigated upon. On finding one of the
accused person, who is the present
revisionist, a minor, the matter was placed
before the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut
where an order for determination of age
was passed on 23.06.2021 and he was
found of the age of little over 13 years and
6 months. The minor applied for bail
through his guardian/father namely, Mool
Chand but the same was rejected by the
Board. The Appeal No. 52 of 2021 filed
against the above noted order dated
07.07.2021, was also dismissed by the
learned Appellate Court below.

4. Aggrieved by the above two orders,
the minor through his guardian/grandfather
has come in criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the revisionist
that the courts below have not proceeded in
accordance with the provisions of Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which
are mandatory in nature and have disentitled the minor from bail without any
good reason. The courts below failed to
consider that no material has been collected
to
demonstrate
that
there
was
any
likelihood of juvenile being brought in
association with any known criminals or to
expose him to any moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release is
likely to defeat the ends of justice. It is next
submitted that the juvenile has had no
criminal history and that the learned courts
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
below have only considered the gravity of
crime and dismissed his application on
merits of the matter which clearly goes
against the statutory provisions of Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

6. It has been submitted that gravity
of the offence is not relevant consideration
for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been
held by this Court in Criminal Revision
No. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan
Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on
01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852
of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided
on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court
in Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006
Cri.L.J. 1373.

7. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of
2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on
16.03.2016, this Court referred to the
earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar
Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103,
wherein this Court reiterated that in a number
of judgements, it has been categorically held
that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if
one of the grounds as provided in proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
exist. So far as the ground of gravity is
concerned, it is not covered under the relevant
provisions. If the bail application of the juvenile
was to be considered under the provisions of
Cr.P.C., there would have been absolutely no
necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act.
The Section 12 of the Act contains a nonobstante clause, which indicates that the general
provisions of Cr.P.C. shall not apply. Therefore,
the gravity or seriousness of the offence should
not be taken as an obstacle or hindrance to
refuse the bail to delinquent juvenile.

8. It is contended that there exist no
material to justify rejection of bail on the
grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act. In
view of the above provisions, the 'child in
conflict with law', who has been in custody for
quite some time deserves to be released on bail
otherwise, the purpose of provisions of Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall stand
defeated. It is also contended that care of the
juvenile in a child care institution cannot be
preferred over his care in his biological family.

9. Learned AGA as well as learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed
the prayer for bail.

10. I perused the impugned orders. It
appears that the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut
took into consideration the report of the District
Probation Officer and made it a sole ground for
dismissal of his bail application.

11. The learned Appellate Court below
took into consideration amongst other facts, the
fact that the weapon of offence was recovered
from guardian/father of the juvenile which was
bought almost a year before the incident of this
case. The juvenile took that country-made
firearm out from the almirah kept in his house
and used that very firearm to carry out this
frightful crime of murder. The learned Appellate
Court below took into consideration the family
background and the fact that because of
disturbed and not so tranquil atmosphere in the
family, he was driven to commit this kind
of offence at a tender age of 13 1/2 years
and that in all probability, he is not likely to
get good guidance from his family
members and therefore, on the basis of
above observations, the learned Appellate
Court below has dismissed the appeal.

12. In Om Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC
201, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a
laudable object of providing a separate
2 All. Minor s/o Moolchand Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1489
forum or a special court for holding trial of
juvenile as it was felt that the children
become
delinquent
by
force
of
circumstance and not by choice and hence
they need to be treated with care and
sensitivity while dealing and trying cases
involving criminal offence. It was further
observed that when an accused is involved
in grave and serious offence which he
committed in a well planned manner
reflecting his maturity of mind the court
ought to be more careful. Thus, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has brought in focus
the nature of offence, the conduct of an
accused as reflected in the method
employed and connected facts in the
commission of crime, in other words
merits of the case, a relevant consideration
while considering the matters of bail.

13. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court gave the above view in the background of
the facts that age of the victim as determined by
the courts below was not free from doubts. In
the peculiar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that where accused commits
grave and heinous offence and thereafter
attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise
of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach
while recording his age, is not acceptable and
that the shelter of the principle of benevolent
legislation of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant
for minors, who are innocent law breakers and
not otherwise. Nevertheless, in my view, the
spotlight is again on the nature of crime
particularly when the alleged crime is grave and
heinous and factors connected thereto.

14. In Mangesh Rajbhar vs. State of
U.P. and Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941, this
Court observed as under:

"13. No doubt, the Juvenile Justice
Act is a beneficial legislation intended for
reform of the juvenile/child in conflict with the
law, but the law also demands that justice
should be done not only to the accused, but
also to the accuser."

25. It is not that this aspect of the
gravity of the offence has been considered
irrelevant to the issue of grant or refusal of bail
to a minor in the past and before the present Act
of 2015 came into force. In a decision of this
Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
where the interest of the society were placed
seemingly not on a level of playing field with the
juvenile, this Court in construing the provisions
of Section 12 in that Act that were pari materia
to Section 12 of the Act in the matter of grant of
bail to a minor held in the case of Monu @
Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011
(74) ACC 353 in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of
the report as under:

"14. Aforesaid section no where
ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in all
cases as it can be denied for the reasons"......if
there
appears
reasonable
grounds
for
believing that the release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral,
physical
or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice."

15. In the light of above statutory
provision bail prayer of the juvenile
revisionist has to be considered on the
surrounding
facts
and
circumstances.
Merely by declaration of being a juvenile
does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with
law to be released on bail as a matter of
right. The Act has a solemn purpose to
achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but
it is not a shelter home for those juvenile
offenders
who
have
got
criminal
proclivities and a criminal psychology. It
has a reformative approach but does not
completely
shun
retributive
theory.
Legislature has preserved larger interest of
society even in cases of bail to a juvenile.
The Act seeks to achieve moral physical
and psychological betterment of juvenile
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offender and therefore if, it is found that
the ends of justice will be defeated or that
goal desired by the legislature can be
achieved by detaining a juvenile offender
in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to
him. This is perceptible from phraseology
of section 12 itself. Legislature in its
wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions
to the rule of bail to a juvenile."

15. This Court in Criminal Revision
2808 of 2019, Sonu (Minor) vs. State of
U.P., clearly opined that the gravity and
heinous nature of offence become relevant
while judging the entitlement of a juvenile
to bail under last of the three disentitling
categories under Section 12(1) of the Act. I
fully agree with the above observation of
this Court.

16. Though cases of juveniles who
have allegedly committed a heinous crime
and are of the age of above 16 years have
been treated differently from those who are
found to be of the age of below 16 years in
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. However, by
no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
the Courts are bound to release the juvenile
below the age of 16 years once he is found
to be of that age and no more.

17. Ordinarily to dis-entitle the
juvenile from the benefits of bail, as
envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, the merits or say the allegations
against him are not important and relevant
as has been consistently held by the
Hon'ble
Courts from time to time.
However, as said earlier the allegations
may assume importance where the Court
has to form an opinion about the ends of
justice. The Courts are under obligation to
address the concerns of both the sides while
deciding upon whether or not the ends of
justice shall stand defeated in case the
juvenile is admitted to bail.

18. In my firm view, the manner of
commission of the crime, the nature thereof
cannot be ignored while striking a balance
between the demands of justice of either of
the sides. It shall be impudent to hold,
regardless of the age of the juvenile, that
the nature of the crime or merits of the
matter are of no relevance when judging
the entitlement of a juveniles to bail in
cases where heinous crimes are committed.
In other words, the nature of crime, the
manner of commission, the methodology
applied, the mental state, the extent of
involvement, the evidence available shall
be the factors to be taken into account in
both the types of cases where the juvenile
is below 16 or where the juvenile is above
16. No artificial line can be drawn between
the two categories when considering the
bail from this particular angle.

19. A word of caution may be added
that no useful purpose may be served by
looking into background of the offender or
as to reasons and circumstances as revealed
from social investigation report, which led
him to this juncture or which brought him
into such a quagmire. They may be factors
which are for a social scientist to ponder
over and to suggest the corrective action. A
judge is only concerned with the facts
arising out of the commission of crime with
a view to decide upon whether or not to
release him on bail. The Court is not
expected to embark on inquiry going back
in times and search for reasons and
justifications for commission of a dastardly
crime by a person of rather a very young
and tender age and get swayed by it. From
this point of view, a social background or
a social investigation report may have a
very limited purpose to serve. The
2 All. Minor s/o Moolchand Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1491
findings cannot be solely based on such
reports, which are more than often very
superficial and unscientific. It is a
common
knowledge
that
social
investigation reports are usually prepared
on printed formats without proper research.
In my opinion, not much reliance can be
placed on such half baked reports. The
Court may have to depend on its own
judicial discretion and objective assessment
of the things while still going strictly
according to the provision of law as to bail
and also keeping in mind that the Act has
intertwined approach reformatory as well
as retributive. The judge has to strike a
precarious balance between interest of the
child and interest of the victim and also the
society at large.

20. The vastness of the ends of justice
may pull within its sphere facts and
circumstances, which may otherwise seem
quite immaterial, extraneous, irrelevant,
impertinent, not so important or even
innocuous at first glance for the purpose of
the applicability of proviso to Section 12 of
the Juvenile Justice Act. The provisions of
the Juvenile Justice Act though largely
enacted with a reformative theories in mind
do not obliterate streaks of retributive
justice in them.

21. Another dimension which sweeps
in, to be weighed, when considering the
bail to juvenile, grant or refusal thereof, is
the PRINCIPLE OF BEST INTEREST as
described in Chapter IV, Section 3 (iv) of
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. And
undeniably and unarguably keeping in
mind the reformative goals of the Act, the
bail can definitely be denied, where there
are circumstances to arrive at a conclusion
that bail should be declined because of the
fact that juvenile shall not get such
conducive atmosphere as may be needed
for his own welfare and betterment, if
released to his family or parents.

22. Coming to the facts of present
matter, this cannot be ignored that it was
the juvenile who came prepared and armed
with a country-made firearm and though he
accompanied his brother, but it was he, who
fired upon Nitin, killing him almost
instantaneously or sometime thereafter.
Before commission of crime, he picked the
firearm from his own house indicating that
this incident was not committed at a spur of
moment, rather it was planned. This fact
can also not be pushed aside that the bail
application and the present revision has
been filed on behalf of the minor through
his grandfather and not by his mother or
father.

23. The District Probation Officer has
reported that he was not properly taken care
of in his family and that he fell into bad
company. It is not very clear that how a
grandfather can properly take care of a boy
who is aged about 13 or 14 years. This fact
is also worth notice that he may be in
specific need of supervision or intervention
and that he may be needing proper
professional counseling and behavioral
therapy.

24. The fact of matter is that in this
case, a school going juvenile of a very
tender age of little over 13 years and 6
months, indulged in a very heinous crime
in a well planned manner, who came ready
with a firearm and had a main role of
shooting the victim; the victim herein was
also a school going boy; sudden loss of a
young member must have sent shock waves
to victim's family members and they
certainly
must
have
gone
through
emotional trauma. The Court is, in such
circumstances expected to strike a
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delicate balance between competing and
more often than not, conflicting demands
of justice where liberty of an individual is
pitted against the larger interest of the society.
In such cases, the need for specific supervision
of the juvenile and wider need to convert the
juvenile into a healthy adult by giving him
professional
counseling
and
behavioral
therapy under the scheme of the Act cannot be
underestimated. Moreover, it may be necessary
to keep him away from the company of elements,
which he previously had.

25. Considering all the above facts and
circumstances of the matter, I concur with the
conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court and
by the Juvenile Justice Board and am of the
opinion that the revisionist is not entitled to bail.

26. Subject to orders of the Juvenile Justice
Board, in this regard, the District Probation Officer
shall sincerely attend to his duties as assigned to
him in Rule 64 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Model Rule, 2016 and prepare
individual care plan, if need arises; likewise
person in charge of child care institution shall
provide care and protection to the child as per
scheme of the Act.

27. Accordingly, the present
criminal
revision
is
dismissed.
However, the Juvenile Justice Board
is directed to expedite the hearing
and
conclude
the
same
at
the
earliest.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1492
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2680 of 2023
Harikesh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajneesh Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 323 & 308 - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
227
-
Informant/injured
mentioned
in
his
written report that on date of occurrence
when he along with his son, reached
District Headquarter, accused persons
alongwith co-accused enquired from him
about work done in village - Accused
assaulted him and his son with rod, lathi
and danda causing head injury to them -
Informant further St.d that accused had
assaulted him with intention to kill him -
His son fell on ground and started
vomiting and became unconscious - Eye -
witnesses also mentioned same in their
St.ments
-
Under
Section
308
IPC,
grievous injury or injury on vital part is
not essential, what is material is assault
on victim with requisite intention or
knowledge - On basis of injured's St.ment,
eyewitnesses testimony and injury report,
trial court rightly found prima facie case
against accused and directed framing of
charges, thus, no illegality or infirmity in
impugned order. (Para 21, 30, 32)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Trilok Chand & anr. Vs St. of Raj. & anr.,
2011 SCC Online Raj 121

2. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.,
(2012) 9 SCC 460, (Paras 12, 13, 20, 28 to 30)

3. Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs Mohammad
Maqbool Magrey & Ors. in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4599
of 2021, (Paras 15 to 17, 25)

4. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr.,
(1979)
3
SCC
4,
(Para
10)